git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH v2] clone: Don't segfault on -b specifing a non-commit

From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date
Nov 6, 2019, 01:36 UTC
Message-ID
<xmqqbltpyeel.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To
<20191105043749.GA27601@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
Show 5 quoted lines
> I like the logic flow in this function, which is IMHO clearer than the
> existing code. But the "err" thing puzzled me for a moment. I think you
> are trying to tell the difference between the case that both "our" and
> "remote" are NULL, and the case that we saw a non-commit. In either case
> we return NULL, but only one is an error.
Yup.
Show 5 quoted lines
> But:
>
>   - I don't think that logic needs to extend down into
>     lookup_commit_reference_gently(); a NULL return from it would always
>     be an error, wouldn't it?
Yes.
Show 16 quoted lines
>   - we could probably simplify this by just inlining it into
>     update_head(). Something like:
>
>       if (our)
>               tip = &our->old_oid;
>       else if (remote)
>               tip = &remote->old_oid;
>
>       if (!tip) {
> 	      /*
> 	       * We have no local branch requested with "-b", and the
> 	       * remote HEAD is unborn. There's nothing to update HEAD
> 	       * to, but this state is not an error.
> 	       */
>               return 0;
>       }

I somehow had an impression that Davide was protecting against the case where tip->old_oid is null_oid (cloning from an empty repo?); NULL return from lookup_commit_reference_gently(null_oid) would not deserve a warning from this codepath, and should work just like the way it has worked before these changes.

Show 19 quoted lines
>       tip_commit = lookup_commit_reference_gently(...);
>       if (!tip_commit) {
>               /*
>> -	fetch_if_missing = 1;
>> -	err = checkout(submodule_progress);
>> +	if (!err) {
>> +		fetch_if_missing = 1;
>> +		err = checkout(submodule_progress);
>> +	}
>
> This part makes sense. We might want an explanatory comment along the
> lines of:
>
>   /*
>    * Only try to checkout if we successfully updated HEAD; otherwise
>    * HEAD isn't pointing to the thing the user wanted.
>    /
>    if (!err) {
>        ...
Yup.
Show 5 quoted lines
>> diff --git a/t/t5609-clone-branch.sh b/t/t5609-clone-branch.sh
>
> I think it would be the case that the remote HEAD is pointing to a
> non-commit (since that's a corrupt repository, it might make sense
> create a separate sub-repository).
All good comments. 
Thanks
Previous: Jeff KingNext: Jeff King
Message 12 of 14 in “Segmentation Fault on non-commit --branch clone”
  1. Segmentation Fault on non-commit --branch cloneDavide Berardi, Nov 1, 2019
  2. Johannes SchindelinNov 1, 2019
  3. Jeff KingNov 1, 2019
  4. Junio C HamanoNov 2, 2019
  5. Davide BerardiNov 3, 2019
  6. Junio C HamanoNov 4, 2019
  7. Junio C HamanoNov 2, 2019
  8. Jeff KingNov 1, 2019
  9. Junio C HamanoNov 2, 2019
  10. clone: Don't segfault on -b specifing a non-commitDavide Berardi, Nov 3, 2019
  11. Jeff KingNov 5, 2019
  12. Junio C HamanoNov 6, 2019
  13. Jeff KingNov 6, 2019
  14. Junio C HamanoNov 6, 2019

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.